On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Mads Chr. Olesen wrote:
man, 24 03 2008 kl. 19:00 +0000, skrev Daniel P. Berrange:
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:52:41AM +0100, Mads Chr. Olesen wrote:
> > Anything further I can do to help get this patch commited?
> >
> > I have been running with it, without problems across restarts, etc.,
> for
> > a couple of weeks now.
>
> I still don't see where the routing rules are defined / take place
> with this setup. There must be rules somewhere specifying the routing
> for the subnet 78.47.YYY.YYY/30, but its not being done in your
> patchset AFAICT
Do you mean entries in the routing table, or?
This is my routing table:
$ route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
78.47.YYY.YYY 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 virsubnetbr0
85.10.XXX.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 85.10.XXX.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0
Ok, so this takes care of letting the hsot correctly route guest traffic
off the box. The local LAN router still also needs to have routing table
setup to ensure other physical hosts can reach the guests. So, this patch
is sufficient in this regard & I've committed it to CVS.
In theory I think it might be possible to avoid the need to configure the
local LAN router, by messing with proxy_arp, but I've not got it to work
so far.
Dan.
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|